The Right and White Nationalism - An annoying cancer

[S'task]

Everyone should believe his own people are better and more valuable than other peoples, that's just natural, normal, and healthy in group preference.

"Skin color", especially visa via "White supremacy" and "racism" is an artificial group created by Democrats in the 19th century to preserve political power in the South by creating a false in group that grouped together rural poor whites and former plantation owning wealthy elites despite lacking any actual common culture. "Race" as an organization theory of humanity and society was the creation of the late 19th century / early 20th century progressive movement (tied in closely with the idea of eugenics) and the explosion of Darwinian evolutionary science. It is not a natural social organizer and was not ever used by people prior to the late 19th century aside from very broad categorizations.

Natural groups tend to be based on common culture, religion, and tribe. While common culture and tribe has historically meant similar ethnic backgrounds, this is not universally true, as many Empires contained multiple ethnic (racial) groups but who shared common culture and religion that acted a unifying aspect. Christianity is explicitly a religion that was birthed in such a society and explicitly denies in its foundational texts racial categorization and instead founds "in group" based on religion and shared faith, and is the most successful religion historically (and only has gone into decline when it's elites began denying the authoritative understanding of its foundational texts and instead began judging them against the same late 19th / early 20th century "science" that gave rise to racism, eugenics, and such nonsense).

 

[S'task]

Paging @S’task since he’s the administrator currently here.

Edit: Why isn’t the @ function working with S’task name?

Done...

And I don't know testing: @S'task

EDIT: Oh, I see what happened. So, I'm assuming you're posting on a phone? Look closely at what you typed, somehow you ended up with the single close quote ’ rather than an apostrophe ' in my name. They're normally interchangeable and nobody cares when reading a word or sentence, but they are different characters as far as a computer is concerned and so it didn't tag me.

 

[StormEagle]

Done...

And I don't know testing: @S'task

Maybe it’s cause I’m on mobile?

 

[S'task]

Maybe it’s cause I’m on mobile?

See my edit above.

 

[Navarro]

"Skin color", especially visa via "White supremacy" and "racism" is an artificial group created by Democrats in the 19th century to preserve political power in the South by creating a false in group that grouped together rural poor whites and former plantation owning wealthy elites despite lacking any actual common culture. "Race" as an organization theory of humanity and society was the creation of the late 19th century / early 20th century progressive movement (tied in closely with the idea of eugenics) and the explosion of Darwinian evolutionary science. It is not a natural social organizer and was not ever used by people prior to the late 19th century aside from very broad categorizations.

So trad he supports stuff cooked up by leftists in the 19th century ... just as he's so hardcore Catholic he worries that the Kali Yuga and concurrent tenth coming of Vishnu described in Hindu mythology may be nigh. He also buys into the early 20th century progressive-leftist "uuugh too many 'deplorables' are reproducing, we're dooomed unless we sterilise 'em all" rhetoric ...

Christianity is explicitly a religion that was birthed in such a society and explicitly denies in its foundational texts racial categorization and instead founds "in group" based on religion and shared faith, and is the most successful religion historically (and only has gone into decline when it's elites began denying the authoritative understanding of its foundational texts and instead began judging them against the same late 19th / early 20th century "science" that gave rise to racism, eugenics, and such nonsense).

I mean, we're dealing with someone who believes that "collective souls" exist and are also angels somehow, and that our own individual souls are mere derivations of these "collective souls". Which quite flatly has nothing to do with Christ's teaching, but rather a certain type of theosophy+Nietzscheanism.

 

[Aldarion]

If you think you're better than others because of the color of their skin, you can go fuck yourself for all I care.

I'm not accusing you of such, btw. Don't confuse my harsh language and think it's directed at you because of my use of the word "you." I'm not claiming you personally are a racist.

I'm not playing the left's definition game with racism. I'm talking about outright, plain and simple racism.

Problem here is that the Left is good at playing the label game and also at twisting definitions. I am an ethnonationalist. But to the Left, that automatically means I am a racist. To them, ethnonationalism equals racialism which equals white nationalism which equals racism which equals white supremacy which equals Fascism which equals Nazism which equals genocide advocacy. And this despite the fact that there is no strict connection, let alone causal one, between these elements. Even the one where there is a connection - Nazism and genocide advocacy - the connection is neither struct nor causal. Nazis were genocidal, but so were Communists. This is part of what @AnimalNoodles meant by the Left "controlling the terms of respectability". Ethnonationalists - unless they are also racists, which may happen but is not necessarily true - believe that ethnic groups should be relatively isolated from one another. This is largely based on the following argumentation:

1. Ethnic tribes are the natural extension of the most basic organizational unit, which is a family.
2. Diversity is strength, which means that it should be preserved.
3. Humans were historically isolated into groups and tribes, through simple lack of means of transportation. This meant that genetic and cultural traits were highly concentrated. Ethnic nationalism opens a way to preserve these distinctions even into the technologically and transportationally globalized world.

But the curious consequence of the above is that it largely makes racism a non-issue. Somebody may hate and despise you as much as they like, but if they can't get to you, they are not a problem. Racism will exist no matter what, but it is imperialism and globalization which create conditions for it to be expressed through ethnic cleansing and genocide. But ethnic nationalists, if they are internally logically consistent (which admittedly is something many humans find difficult), should absolutely despise any form of imperialism since it makes nation expend its energy on something that potentially endangers it by promoting globalization. As a matter of fact, if you look at the 19th century justifications for imperialism and the ideology of "White Man's Burden"... it is essentially based on 19th century version of the Leftist ideal of "universal values".

Now, as I have pointed out, if we were to use objective definitions, Neomarxist Left are themselves racists. But they are very good at defining definitions, and so definition of racism has shifted several times so that it can only be applied to the white people - today, definition of racism is "prejudice + power", according to the Left. Which is BS, but hey... everything is fair in a war.

 

[Morphic Tide]

The main thing to note about denouncing White Nationalists is that you can't just denounce them. The underlying "winning" strategies have centered on accepting the common touchstones used as a "wedge" while rejecting the further matters, gaining the moderates by rejecting the extremes of Intersectionality and Globalism but advertising retention of Merit.

In the wider analogy the situation has arrived at the point where the tip of the "wedge" has "worn out". The sheer breadth of extremism being pushed can no longer coexist with the original notions used to begin radicalization, and consequently the Left in its current form can actually be defeated by enthusiastic acceptance of the tip of the wedge. Attack affirmative action by appealing to merit, attack transgenderism by appealing to LGB rights, attack the extremes by appealing to the positions they've moved away from still held by the moderates.

The two example cases to take note of are Trump's worker-first agenda marking the beginnings of the Unions breaking from the Democrats by demonstrating how the Democrat agenda has left them behind, and the "Super Straight" phenomenon arguing against the troon agenda with the lexicon of Intersectionality by showing how it contradicts homosexual rights.

So, with regard to white nationalists, you have to not merely denounce them, but in the same breath precisely denounce their notion of demographic predestination and the Left's push for lowered standards that are nothing but a mirror of pity to the same ideas.

 

[ShieldWife]

I don’t like using the word “racism” at all because it’s use is downright Orwellian in its significance and usage. Calling people racist is just giving power to the left.

But for a moment, let me use the word by first giving it a more narrow and meaningful definition. I will define racism (for the purpose of this post) as hatred, hostility, and bad intentions directed at one or more races. This means that hating a race or wanting them to suffer would be racism, but saying that you favor your own race or that a certain group is better at music isn’t.

So by the above definition of racism, both the right and the left in the modern USA have a racism problem. They both have a racism problem and the racism in both cases is directed at white people, both the right and left have an anti-white racism problem.

For the left, this is obvious. The left openly admit that they dislike whites, that whites are the source of the world’s problems, they openly call for government and private policies to discriminate against whites, support disenfranchisement of whites, and celebrate whites becoming oppressed and scapegoated minorities in every nation where whites live, including European nations. Anti-white racism is the primary goal of the left, all other issues are of secondary or tertiary importance.

What about the right then? Well, their racism isn’t as overt. The mainstream of the American right will advocate for color blind polices, non-discrimination, and integration. They will advocate for white people especially to pursue these polices in a world and political climate where every other ethic group pursues their own internet first and foremost at the expense of white ethnic interests. Furthermore, the mainstream of the right will viciously attack any white people who suggest that they advocate for their own ethnic interests, or even opposing anti-white racism, while only expressing mild opposition to other ethnicities doing the same. This is even assuming that the right wing person is even an actual right winger, because a high percentage of them are just more moderate leftists who advocate for the same policies as leftists do (above) in a more moderate way.

The right wing racism problem amounts to seeing Bob attack John and standing by passively watching, maybe commenting about how it’s wrong of Bob, until John punches back and then jumping on John and savagely attacking him and admonishing him for being violent against Bob. Could you really say that this person is just against violence for attacking John or would you say that doing this would in fact be showing a dislike of John? This is the anti-white racism that pervades the modern right. It’s actually pretty similar to how the police act with regard to BLM and Antifa too.

There is a widespread war against whites in the modern West. A movement to demonize us, destroy our culture, scapegoat us for the world’s problems, pass laws to discriminate against us, turn us into despised minorities in every nation, and ultimately far worse if South Africa is any indication for what the future holds. The left says that you’re a horrible racist Nazi if you aren’t actively helping this to happen, the right says that you’re a horrible racist Nazi if you want to stop this from happening.

So yes, both sides have major racism problems, if we are even to use the word “racism” which I’d rather not. More accurately, I would avoid the R-word and just say that both sides are anti-white in their intentions and policies.

So, are there actual white racists among the right? Sure, a few, but they have little to no influence in the mainstream right of any Western nation. Why are they there? Well, if you’re an actual White Nationalist would it be better to support a mildly anti-white party or a staunchly anti-white party? It might be reasonable to regard the GOP as a lesser evil and worth voting for, though that conclusion may be incorrect.

 

[Bacle]

I don’t like using the word “racism” at all because it’s use is downright Orwellian in its significance and usage. Calling people racist is just giving power to the left.

But for a moment, let me use the word by first giving it a more narrow and meaningful definition. I will define racism (for the purpose of this post) as hatred, hostility, and bad intentions directed at one or more races. This means that hating a race or wanting them to suffer would be racism, but saying that you favor your own race or that a certain group is better at music isn’t.

So by the above definition of racism, both the right and the left in the modern USA have a racism problem. They both have a racism problem and the racism in both cases is directed at white people, both the right and left have an anti-white racism problem.

For the left, this is obvious. The left openly admit that they dislike whites, that whites are the source of the world’s problems, they openly call for government and private policies to discriminate against whites, support disenfranchisement of whites, and celebrate whites becoming oppressed and scapegoated minorities in every nation where whites live, including European nations. Anti-white racism is the primary goal of the left, all other issues are of secondary or tertiary importance.

What about the right then? Well, their racism isn’t as overt. The mainstream of the American right will advocate for color blind polices, non-discrimination, and integration. They will advocate for white people especially to pursue these polices in a world and political climate where every other ethic group pursues their own internet first and foremost at the expense of white ethnic interests. Furthermore, the mainstream of the right will viciously attack any white people who suggest that they advocate for their own ethnic interests, or even opposing anti-white racism, while only expressing mild opposition to other ethnicities doing the same. This is even assuming that the right wing person is even an actual right winger, because a high percentage of them are just more moderate leftists who advocate for the same policies as leftists do (above) in a more moderate way.

The right wing racism problem amounts to seeing Bob attack John and standing by passively watching, maybe commenting about how it’s wrong of Bob, until John punches back and then jumping on John and savagely attacking him and admonishing him for being violent against Bob. Could you really say that this person is just against violence for attacking John or would you say that doing this would in fact be showing a dislike of John? This is the anti-white racism that pervades the modern right. It’s actually pretty similar to how the police act with regard to BLM and Antifa too.

There is a widespread war against whites in the modern West. A movement to demonize us, destroy our culture, scapegoat us for the world’s problems, pass laws to discriminate against us, turn us into despised minorities in every nation, and ultimately far worse if South Africa is any indication for what the future holds. The left says that you’re a horrible racist Nazi if you aren’t actively helping this to happen, the right says that you’re a horrible racist Nazi if you want to stop this from happening.

So yes, both sides have major racism problems, if we are even to use the word “racism” which I’d rather not. More accurately, I would avoid the R-word and just say that both sides are anti-white in their intentions and policies.

So, are there actual white racists among the right? Sure, a few, but they have little to no influence in the mainstream right of any Western nation. Why are they there? Well, if you’re an actual White Nationalist would it be better to support a mildly anti-white party or a staunchly anti-white party? It might be reasonable to regard the GOP as a lesser evil and worth voting for, though that conclusion may be incorrect.

Yet your twisted definition of racism is a farce meant only to go on about how both sides are 'anti-white', as if 'white' is a distinct culture and that 'whiteness' must be preserved for its own sake.

We live in America, a melting pot of many races, many ethnicities, and as such, if you want to be an ethnic supremacist of any sort, or think 'preserving the white race' should be a priority, then LEAVE.

People like you are part of why I would not have kids with a 'white' woman, and why I'm fine chasing you to the fringes of American society.

Edit: Like a lot of this focus on 'anti-white' racism comes across like the Illinois Nazi's from Blues Brothers, only slightly dressed up.

 

[almostinsane]

I would ask how exactly conservatives get white nationalists to disassociate themselves with the conservative movement, because that's the main issue. Conservatives don't do anything to advocate for white nationalist policies. They specifically disavow them. Yet for daring to espouse views right of Mao, conservatives are accused of racism by the Left and their allies in media and college campuses.

So, where does that leave the Right? Do we fold every time we are accused of racism for fear that white nationalists will take the opportunity to try to make it true? That means being Democrat Lite until the Republican Party dies off.

The best way we can deal with this is a bored, "Racism is bad. Do you condemn Che Guevara?"

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Personally I care about White nationalist as much as I care about other nationalist or even globalist in short I don't. We aren't friends just because we share the same skin color or heck even share the same "Landmass" we are brothers and sisters ONLY if we know each other and share similar ideals. and whether you like it or not I'm going to marry and have inercourse with whatever woman I chose regardless of whether it's diverse (Whatever the heck that's supposed to mean) or whether it keeps Racial purity (Whatever that means. If you try to talk me down, I'll tell you to go take a long walk off a short edge, if you try to beat me down, then I'll punch back twice as hard. You do you but leave me alone. I know that's kind of become a foreign concept in the age of social media.

an a slightly unrealted note, for all of the talk about the 2nd amendment, it's WAY underutilized.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Edit: Like a lot of this focus on 'anti-white' racism comes across like the Illinois Nazi's from Blues Brothers, only slightly dressed up.

"Only a nazi wants his grandchildren to look like his grandparents and to have a better life as well; real americans care about ideas, values, and this piece of paper and nothing else!!1one" ~ 'conservatives'

If white people not wanting to be genocided is literal nazism, then what is wrong with it?

 

[LindyAF]

I don’t honestly give a shit about race. I care about ideology and shared values.

Honest question here- would you be in favor of deporting those who don't share your ideology or values?

 

[Morphic Tide]

If white people not wanting to be genocided is literal nazism, then what is wrong with it?

Interbreeding without cultural erasure (which is the entire point of specifying preservation of ideas and values) is not, and has never been by any definition in common use from the start of the term's existence, genocide. Because the genetic properties are not outright lost outside very narrow populations or far worse ratios than "Whites" have to worry about, they're blended together and simply expand the meaningful gene pool.

Go back to the 1500s and learn firsthand that "white" is a bullshit generalization that only works because there's so many common ideas and values that made it possible to cement the breadth of Europe into a semi-solid mass and the historic trends you're obsessed with a shallow pastiche of are way the fuck more exacting than you have the remotest grasp of. Skin color is bullshit.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Interbreeding without cultural erasure (which is the entire point of specifying preservation of ideas and values) is not, and has never been by any definition in common use from the start of the term's existence, genocide. Because the genetic properties are not outright lost outside very narrow populations or far worse ratios than "Whites" have to worry about, they're blended together and simply expand the meaningful gene pool.

Go back to the 1500s and learn firsthand that "white" is a bullshit generalization that only works because there's so many common ideas and values that made it possible to cement the breadth of Europe into a semi-solid mass and the historic trends you're obsessed with a shallow pastiche of are way the fuck more exacting than you have the remotest grasp of. Skin color is bullshit.

Ah yes, 'white' folks don't exist, ergo they can't be genocided. Thanks!

 

[StormEagle]

Honest question here- would you be in favor of deporting those who don't share your ideology or values?

I do often times say that we should set up a gulag for leftists in Alaska. Put them to work drilling for oil.

I’d prefer to nonviolently drive them out of academia and any sort of military or political power, but it seems like they’re desperately trying to take all the nonviolent options away from us.

Nonviolence is my preference, and I pray that violence doesn’t become necessary.

 

[LindyAF]

I’d prefer to nonviolently drive them out of academia and any sort of military or political power, but it seems like they’re desperately trying to take all the nonviolent options away from us.

Nonviolence is my preference, and I pray that violence doesn’t become necessary.

My point here was that in order to do the "civic nationalism" bit, IMO you'd need to be in favor of that. Not even as a self defense mechanism, which is what you're talking about here. If in your view a nation is really founded upon an ideology or a set of shared ideas- rather than being a distinct ethnic people, the territory they hold, and the government they set up over themselves, then you'd necessarily need to be restricting membership to only those who hold to those ideas.

 

[King Arts]

Yet your twisted definition of racism is a farce meant only to go on about how both sides are 'anti-white', as if 'white' is a distinct culture and that 'whiteness' must be preserved for its own sake.

We live in America, a melting pot of many races, many ethnicities, and as such, if you want to be an ethnic supremacist of any sort, or think 'preserving the white race' should be a priority, then LEAVE.

People like you are part of why I would not have kids with a 'white' woman, and why I'm fine chasing you to the fringes of American society.

Edit: Like a lot of this focus on 'anti-white' racism comes across like the Illinois Nazi's from Blues Brothers, only slightly dressed up.

So you are going to be expressly political and say no to white women because of what you perceive to be racism from one person. This is so close to the woke bullshit liberals pull where they say stuff like white people marrying and having families is racism it’s laughable. Also I thought you said you were gay so you wouldn’t touch any woman let alone a white one.

But seriously has turned has the right idea a man has the right to be with any woman that will have him if you have yellow fever and like Asians that’s perfectly ok, if you like dark chocolate and want a black woman that is also your choice. If you like white women great. The reverse is also true if you find black features unattractive there is nothing wrong with that and you don’t have to like something. But there is something wrong with deciding your personal life based on woke leftest bullshit.

Honest question here- would you be in favor of deporting those who don't share your ideology or values?

Who would want to take in communist filth? If there was a place that would accept them that would be great. Though there is hell.😇

 

[LindyAF]

Who would want to take in communist filth? If there was a place that would accept them that would be great. Though there is hell.😇

I'm not saying "take in." Let's say someone who was born in America, all of their grandparents too. Hell, let's say their roots go back to pre-revolutionary days. Direct patrilineal descent from someone on the Mayflower, and their mother's family came over when Jamestown was first being settled.

They're also a liberal. Are they an American? Would you favor deporting them? If not, how left wing would they have to be before you did not consider them such, provided that they do not advocate for violence or overthrow of the current government, they just think things would be better another way?

 

[King Arts]

I'm not saying "take in." Let's say someone who was born in America, all of their grandparents too. Hell, let's say their roots go back to pre-revolutionary days. Direct patrilineal descent from someone on the Mayflower, and their mother's family came over when Jamestown was first being settled.

They're also a liberal. Are they an American? Would you favor deporting them? If not, how left wing would they have to be before you did not consider them such, provided that they do not advocate for violence or overthrow of the current government, they just think things would be better another way?

When I was saying who will take them in it was a question. Let’s say we exile that person you described. Where would they be sent? I mean other nations won’t be happy if we started sending away our human trash. Imagine if Mexico decided to save a few bucks and abolished prisons and just sent all criminals north to America we would be pretty pissed. Anyway to answer your question, someone who either supports atheistic communism or wants to remove the 2nd amendment should have their citizenship stripped from them. Other things I could tolerate.